- From: Jere Kapyaho <jere.kapyaho@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:31:11 +0200
- To: ext Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 29.1.2009 23.42, "ext Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote: > Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> I'm not sure I agree. I think for security reasons, we should tell >>> implementors how to treat SVG icons (no script, no interactivity). They >>> won't have to strip down the SVG viewer, just set up constraints (which >>> they need to do anyway). >> >> Ok, I tend to agree with you that this may be what needs to happen. >> However, I think this was what Boris was saying we should try to >> avoid. Boris, any thoughts? comments? > > Treating svg icons in widgets in the same mode as <img> pointing to SVG > sounds great to me. So in essence you would tell the SVG engine to rasterize the vector image in whatever size is suitable for the widget engine? (And if there is any animation, just use the first rendered frame.) If so, the widget engine needs to pass an icon size in pixels to the SVG engine -- it could be the 'width' and 'height' attributes of the 'icon' element, except that those values are not necessarily what the widget engine would use. The icon needs to adapt to the engine and its UI, not the other way around. Curiously, the spec states in the description of those attributes (section 7.9) [1] that they are "only applicable to graphic formats that have no intrinsic width or height (e.g., SVG)". But an SVG image may specify a size with the width and height attributes in the root element [2]. What is supposed to happen if you have 'width' and 'height' in both? --Jere [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#the-icon-element [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/struct.html#SVGElement
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 08:32:10 UTC